NY Times Magazine article Options

[Blakjak]

If anybody has acces to the NY Times magazine available with the sunday NY Times should read the article about separation of church and state in there, it's a very interesting proposal.

[Blakjak]

I found the coercion argument very convincing. I previosuly was very confused about this topic, even after having done a semester's worth of reasearch on it for a competition. This article was not only informative but also seemed to be aimed at reconciling the nation, something lacking these days. I should post an article written by a friend on mine published in the AJC editorial, it's along those same lines.

[holden_caulfield]

According to Feldman, I fall under the legal secularist category. From my point of view, as a reasonable citizen, Feldman's proposal makes sense and I'd be willing to support it so long as I am assured that those on the other side of the debate are people like me, reasonable citizens. Most reasonable people seem to get along fine despite their differences.

But I am not so sure that we are all reasonable. I am not so sure that allowing public symbols but restricting public finance would satisfy either side, especially the values evangelists, because I do not trust those who lead them. The last thing on Pat Robertson's mind is inclusion.

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

That's in reference to his fellow Christians. Now, one can write off Pat Robertson as an extremist, but that would be dangerous, since he garners the support of millions of people, people who I feel would, if they had the chance, marginalize people like me in a heartbeat. Thus, the only defense, from the legal secularist point of view, is to be vigilant and resolute in the courts.

Earlier I said that I would support Feldman's argument on practical terms, but it is indeed a sacrifice made in the name of reconciliation. If public symbols mean so much to the religous right, how can one so easily dismiss their importance to the irreligious?